On Jan 11, 2007, at 19:53 UTC, Henry Stafford wrote:

> One thing we definitely DON'T know (back me up here Joe unless you
> think I'm too for-sure about humans NOT knowing anything) is how low
> G's effect kids and their early growth.

I certainly agree when it comes to humans. I think there have been
some short gestation & growth experiments done on other small animals,
but I don't know any of the details -- anyone?

It strikes me as likely to be a problem, which means that places like
the moon will never have real colonies (which include births and kids),
and orbital colonies may need to be careful to put all the schools and
family housing in the full 1-G area (or whatever level it turns out is
enough for normal development).

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

> It strikes me as likely to be a problem, which means that places like
> the moon will never have real colonies (which include births and
>kids),
> and orbital colonies may need to be careful to put all the schools
>and
> family housing in the full 1-G area (or whatever level it turns out
>is
> enough for normal development).
>

Not really. All what is needed is to put the "artificial uterous" in a
1-G environment. I doubt natural pregnacies would be possible in space
at all. Artificial uterous is the way to go. Welcome to the "Brave New
World" :)

Omar Vega

On Jan 11, 2007, at 21:02 UTC, Omar E. Vega wrote:

> Not really. All what is needed is to put the "artificial uterous" in
> a 1-G environment.

I see two problems with this:

1. WHAT artificual uterus? Such a thing doesn't exist.

2. This would only take care of development up to birth. Kids do quite
a bit of growing after that, and may need more gravity than adults do
in order to develop properly.

> I doubt natural pregnacies would be possible in space at all.

Why would you doubt that? In a space colony, with Earth-normal
gravity, atmosphere, and radiation levels, what could possibly prevent
it?

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

On 1/11/07, joe@... wrote:
(...)
> 1. WHAT artificual uterus? Such a thing doesn't exist.

Although there is ongoing research into aritificial uteruses (or
whatever the plural): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus

There is also ongoing progress in "ectogenesis" as a whole, with
ever-more premature babies surviving with no sequels at earlier and
earlier stages of pregnancies.

(...)
> Why would you doubt that? In a space colony, with Earth-normal
> gravity, atmosphere, and radiation levels, what could possibly prevent
> it?
(...)

I have the same question. Do embryos and fetuses need a high density
of gravitons or something like that? :)

Perhaps it is possible to have normal pregnancies in Space, but I
doubt it. In Space people will work in 0-G as a routine and switch
back and forth from 0-G to 1-G. Why? Because a large portion of the
jobs will be in assembling solar satelites, space carriers and
things like that.

Now, imagine, just imagine (I need confirmation in here) that the
first couple of day is critical for the normal development of the
fetus.... What will you do? Forbid women to work at space?

Think about it, and you'll realize pregnancies will HAVE to be done
with artificial uterous,

Omar

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
wrote:
>
> On 1/11/07, joe@... wrote:
> (...)
> > 1. WHAT artificual uterus? Such a thing doesn't exist.
>
> Although there is ongoing research into aritificial uteruses (or
> whatever the plural):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus
>
> There is also ongoing progress in "ectogenesis" as a whole, with
> ever-more premature babies surviving with no sequels at earlier and
> earlier stages of pregnancies.
>
> (...)
> > Why would you doubt that? In a space colony, with Earth-normal
> > gravity, atmosphere, and radiation levels, what could possibly
prevent
> > it?
> (...)
>
> I have the same question. Do embryos and fetuses need a high
density

On Jan 12, 2007, at 02:15 UTC, Omar E. Vega wrote:

> Perhaps it is possible to have normal pregnancies in Space, but I
> doubt it. In Space people will work in 0-G as a routine and switch
> back and forth from 0-G to 1-G. Why? Because a large portion of the
> jobs will be in assembling solar satelites, space carriers and
> things like that.

Some will, but certainly not all of them. The whole point of a space
colony is that it's a place to live -- people will be doctors,
schoolteachers, computer programmers, cooks, musicians, actors,
engineers, and everything else that people are here on Earth. A small
portion will be space construction workers.

> Now, imagine, just imagine (I need confirmation in here) that the
> first couple of day is critical for the normal development of the
> fetus.... What will you do? Forbid women to work at space?

No, no more than we forbid women to drink or smoke, or require them to
take folate -- yet a woman who's trying to get pregnant generally
forgoes drinking and smoking and starts taking folate.

Moreover, I find it hard to believe that the first few days matter
much. The embryo is, at most, a little ball of cells at that point,
floating neutrally buoyant in fluid. It's essentially weightless
already. Plus, women who are a few days pregnant still sleep
horizontally, go swimming, ski, parachute, etc., and the babies turn
out fine.

Now, later in the pregnancy, when bones are forming, it's possible that
gravity matters a bit more... though it still seems unlikely, since the
fetus is still neutrally bouyant and may in fact be in any of several
different positions. My guess is that gravity doesn't matter much
until the baby's born.

And finally, even if it does matter, it's just plain wrong to say "you
can't have pregnancies in space." At worst you'd have to say "women
who frequently work in zero-G should avoid getting pregnant." I think
it's obvious that a woman who spends all day every day in a fully
Earthlike environment is going to be just fine, even if that
environment happens to be a space colony.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

On Jan 12, 2007, at 03:04 UTC, Xenophile wrote:

> Who wants to ban herself from all the zero-G recreation for
> nine months?

Or drinking, for that matter?

Let me guess, you're not a parent yet. :) These are minor concerns
compared to a parent's concern for her baby.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

Hi Joe,

It is not a matter of having or not babies, couples will form
families in space abd will have children. The matter is which method
to chose: natural or artificial.

As far as I have heared, there is evidence of malformation of
embrios in 0-G. It is not just bone development that matters. The
problem is that G provides a direction or orientation in a natural
pregancy that may be crucial in certain moments of the development.

However, the true is NOBODY knows the full true as yet.

Now, artificial wombs are quite close to become a reality in the
following decades. Probably the first applications will be with farm
animals. And certainly, quite a lot time before the fist massive
space settlements are put in the space. Wait and see.

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2007, at 02:15 UTC, Omar E. Vega wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it is possible to have normal pregnancies in Space, but
I
> > doubt it. In Space people will work in 0-G as a routine and
switch
> > back and forth from 0-G to 1-G. Why? Because a large portion of
the
> > jobs will be in assembling solar satelites, space carriers and
> > things like that.
>
> Some will, but certainly not all of them. The whole point of a
space
> colony is that it's a place to live -- people will be doctors,
> schoolteachers, computer programmers, cooks, musicians, actors,
> engineers, and everything else that people are here on Earth. A
small
> portion will be space construction workers.
>
> > Now, imagine, just imagine (I need confirmation in here) that
the
> > first couple of day is critical for the normal development of
the
> > fetus.... What will you do? Forbid women to work at space?
>
> No, no more than we forbid women to drink or smoke, or require
them to
> take folate -- yet a woman who's trying to get pregnant generally
> forgoes drinking and smoking and starts taking folate.
>
> Moreover, I find it hard to believe that the first few days matter
> much. The embryo is, at most, a little ball of cells at that
point,
> floating neutrally buoyant in fluid. It's essentially weightless
> already. Plus, women who are a few days pregnant still sleep
> horizontally, go swimming, ski, parachute, etc., and the babies
turn
> out fine.
>
> Now, later in the pregnancy, when bones are forming, it's possible
that
> gravity matters a bit more... though it still seems unlikely,
since the
> fetus is still neutrally bouyant and may in fact be in any of
several
> different positions. My guess is that gravity doesn't matter much
> until the baby's born.
>
> And finally, even if it does matter, it's just plain wrong to
say "you
> can't have pregnancies in space." At worst you'd have to
say "women
> who frequently work in zero-G should avoid getting pregnant." I
think

On Jan 12, 2007, at 13:24 UTC, Omar E. Vega wrote:

> As far as I have heared, there is evidence of malformation of
> embrios in 0-G.

I'd need to see some references. It's a topic I've been interested in
for a long time, and I haven't heard that, and it also contradicts
common sense (e.g. the observation that bed rest mimics zero-G
exposure, yet pregnant women spend many hours horizontal in bed).

> However, the true is NOBODY knows the full true as yet.

Agreed. This would be a fruitful area of research, and until we get
the results, it's just one speculation against another. :)

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

On 1/12/07, Omar E. Vega wrote:
(...)
> Now, artificial wombs are quite close to become a reality in the
> following decades. Probably the first applications will be with farm
> animals. And certainly, quite a lot time before the fist massive
> space settlements are put in the space. Wait and see.
(...)

Some lines of research have been using farm animals indeed. On the
other hand there is the "inverse" line of research in continuing
improvement in therapies and special care with human premature babies.

And yes, considering the current fast pace of space
colonization, I guess that we will have artificial wombs
before we have massive space settlements.

> On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:23 AM, joe@... wrote:
>
> (e.g. the observation that bed rest mimics zero-G
> exposure, yet pregnant women spend many hours horizontal in bed)
>

It's clear that bed-rest "mimics" zero G, but it does not in any way
recreate it. The similarity is just due to the fact that the internal
organs do not feel the same pressures in the same direction that they
are evolved to withstand most. NASA has been experimenting for a long
time on adults to see how significant the similarity is, but they
haven't done much real experimentation in this manner on developing
fetuses (or is the plural feti???) At least not in humans. While I
don't think zero G would be an evolutionary brick wall for the human
species, is is possible that it would select certain individuals over
others. We humans have this nasty habit of using our technology to
overcome evolutionary pressure, and we will in this case, too. In all
likelihood, human settlements in space will evolve to become even
more dependent on technology than we currently are. This is just fine
as long as you can maintain your technology, but an economic dark age
or catastrophe could create an evolutionary bottleneck that would
likely result in differentiation or even speciation: only those
individuals on the settlement with the genes to breed in zero G
without technological aid would survive such a dark age.

But shorter term, I think a combination of "natural" childbirth and
golly-gee-whiz technology will allow breeding in lower G environments
with no problem. The problem is going to be getting enough "heavy"
humans out of Earth's gravity well to create a viable gene pool in
the first place. A colony of 5 or 10 or even 100 astronauts will not
have enough genetic diversity to find the right genetic combinations
to thrive in space. But what if we sent 100 highly trained astronauts
along with the genetic material for thousands of other people? We
could send eggs and sperm for thousands or even millions of people
into space relatively cheaply (compared to sending adults) and have
those 100 adult astronauts raise all these other peoples kids from
"test-tubes" to create a population over several generations. We
could even store some of this material to introduce "new" genetic
material into the settlement's gene pool periodically. Since the cost
of getting from Earth into orbit is by far the biggest hurdle we
face, perhaps "growing our own" colonists may be a better solution to
start with.

What do you think? Is that too "mad-scientist" or is this a viable
possibility for getting a large and diverse population going within a
few generations with a fraction as many rocket launches?

Doug

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May wrote:
> In all
> likelihood, human settlements in space will evolve to become even
> more dependent on technology than we currently are. This is just fine
> as long as you can maintain your technology, but an economic dark age
> or catastrophe could create an evolutionary bottleneck that would
> likely result in differentiation or even speciation: only those
> individuals on the settlement with the genes to breed in zero G
> without technological aid would survive such a dark age.

There will be evolutionary pressures without any economic collapse:
it's far cheaper and simpler to build a zero-gee habitat or spaceship
than one that requires 1-gee gravity. Getting work done in zero-gee
takes less energy than it does in 1-gee gravity (all other things
being equal) There will be products manufactured in zero-g, needing
workers who can be there in zero-g. Playing around in zero-g is more
fun...etc. All of these will mean economic incentives to adapt to
zero-g, to those individuals capable of adapting to it.

What one might expect to see centuries from now are *large*
settlements full of people who still require a full 1-g to live and
reproduce, while on the frontier in outlying areas will be very small
settlements of people who have adapted to zero-g.

> But shorter term, I think a combination of "natural" childbirth and
> golly-gee-whiz technology will allow breeding in lower G environments
> with no problem.

My gut-level feeling is: there's no substitute for good old-fashioned
1-G gravity when it comes to pregnancy and early childhood. In fact,
even the simulated gravity provided by a rotating place might not be
good for raising humans: the coriolis force and constant motion might
play havoc with small children's balance, for example.

> The problem is going to be getting enough "heavy"
> humans out of Earth's gravity well to create a viable gene pool in
> the first place. A colony of 5 or 10 or even 100 astronauts will not
> have enough genetic diversity to find the right genetic combinations
> to thrive in space.

There have been quite small colonies started by quite small groups of
people that nevertheless survived. The Mayflower colony would be one
example. In the remote past, parts of the Earth were colonized by
*very* small numbers of individuals, perhaps only a dozen or so...
those survived also.

I'm no expert, but I think 100 individuals is enough genetic
variation to start a viable colony.

>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:14 AM, wlm_efn wrote:
>
> There will be evolutionary pressures without any economic collapse:
> it's far cheaper and simpler to build a zero-gee habitat or spaceship
> than one that requires 1-gee gravity. Getting work done in zero-gee
> takes less energy than it does in 1-gee gravity (all other things
> being equal) There will be products manufactured in zero-g, needing
> workers who can be there in zero-g. Playing around in zero-g is more
> fun...etc. All of these will mean economic incentives to adapt to
> zero-g, to those individuals capable of adapting to it.
>
> What one might expect to see centuries from now are *large*
> settlements full of people who still require a full 1-g to live and
> reproduce, while on the frontier in outlying areas will be very small
> settlements of people who have adapted to zero-g.
>

The biggest problem with adapting to a near 0 g environment fulltime
is that your body would not be able to stand acceleration. Gravity
and acceleration are the same thing. For a person who's body has
adapted to 1/10th G, accelerating at 1G would be like us accelerating
at 10G. When the space shuttle takes off, it goes at just under 3Gs.
It seems likely that people living all the time for years in zero G
would risk breaking weakened necks and rupturing weakened hearts when
trying to fly through space too quickly. Any time they wanted to
leave their settlement, they would have to accelerate away from it
VERY slowly. Also, they would be completely unable to visit earth or
other settlements. As long as these two restrictions are followed,
humans may be able to survive in a multigenerational zero G setting
as long as strict population controls are used. If the population is
allowed to grow, eventually it will get too crowded and some of the
zero-G-ers would have to leave. As I said before, leaving the
settlement would be a very slow and difficult process for these
folks. But I have no doubt that as long as the human race is able to
survive this gauntlet we are going through these next 100 years or
so, and we are able to get these settlements going, there will be
zero G settlements, and .5G settlements and 2 G settlements and any
variety of settlements one could imagine. The zero-G-ers could set up
resorts and such on their stations for 1Gers to visit, but of course
the zeroGers could not visit the 1 G-ers environment.

Doug

Hi Doug,

If we talk short term, there is no evolutionary pressure at all for
addapting to 0-G. Natural selection acts too slow for having any
real effect in short periods of time (100.000 years or less)

Now, let's suppose that these fellows actually addapt to Zero-G,
either by genetic engineering or chance. I don't think they will
lost the skill to survive to 1-G because of that. Accelerations of 1
or more Gs would be a matter of routine living in space, so they
will be able to stand accelerations even if they live most theirs
lives at zero-G.

For me, more interesting that addapting physically to 0-G is the
brain wiring changes that are needed to get addapted to the space.
People forget in the surface we live in a 2-D world, mainly. In the
space a person will live in REAL 3-D. Our mind is not design for
that ,,, as yet. Curious, isn't?

Omar Vega

> > On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:14 AM, wlm_efn wrote:
> >
> > There will be evolutionary pressures without any economic
collapse:
> > it's far cheaper and simpler to build a zero-gee habitat or
spaceship
> > than one that requires 1-gee gravity. Getting work done in zero-
gee
> > takes less energy than it does in 1-gee gravity (all other things
> > being equal) There will be products manufactured in zero-g,
needing
> > workers who can be there in zero-g. Playing around in zero-g is
more
> > fun...etc. All of these will mean economic incentives to adapt to
> > zero-g, to those individuals capable of adapting to it.
> >
> > What one might expect to see centuries from now are *large*
> > settlements full of people who still require a full 1-g to live
and
> > reproduce, while on the frontier in outlying areas will be very
small
> > settlements of people who have adapted to zero-g.
> >
> The biggest problem with adapting to a near 0 g environment
fulltime
> is that your body would not be able to stand acceleration.
Gravity
> and acceleration are the same thing. For a person who's body has
> adapted to 1/10th G, accelerating at 1G would be like us
accelerating
> at 10G. When the space shuttle takes off, it goes at just under
3Gs.
> It seems likely that people living all the time for years in zero
G
> would risk breaking weakened necks and rupturing weakened hearts
when
> trying to fly through space too quickly. Any time they wanted to
> leave their settlement, they would have to accelerate away from
it
> VERY slowly. Also, they would be completely unable to visit earth
or
> other settlements. As long as these two restrictions are
followed,
> humans may be able to survive in a multigenerational zero G
setting
> as long as strict population controls are used. If the population
is
> allowed to grow, eventually it will get too crowded and some of
the
> zero-G-ers would have to leave. As I said before, leaving the
> settlement would be a very slow and difficult process for these
> folks. But I have no doubt that as long as the human race is able
to
> survive this gauntlet we are going through these next 100 years
or
> so, and we are able to get these settlements going, there will be
> zero G settlements, and .5G settlements and 2 G settlements and
any
> variety of settlements one could imagine. The zero-G-ers could set
up
> resorts and such on their stations for 1Gers to visit, but of
course